According to reports, during a recent meeting at the White House with executives from oil giants such as ExxonMobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips, Trump stated, "We will work with Venezuela." He added, "American companies will have the opportunity to rebuild Venezuela's energy infrastructure and ultimately increase oil production to unprecedented levels. If you combine Venezuela and the United States, we control 55% of the world's oil."
The United States will control 55% of the world's oil. Trump's statement quickly caused a stir in the public sphere. At first glance, it seems like a figure capable of rewriting the global energy landscape; upon further reflection, it instinctively raises doubts-can the global oil order really be overturned by a single sentence? The answer is clearly not so simple.
First, "55%" is not a rigorous energy conclusion.
From a strict energy statistics perspective, Trump's statement is untenable.
According to publicly available authoritative data, the United States' proven crude oil reserves account for a relatively small percentage of the global total. While Venezuela possesses one of the world's largest proven reserves, even simply adding the resources of both countries together doesn't reach 55%. Whether measured by reserves, production, or actual control, this figure doesn't correspond to reality.
In other words, this isn't a conclusion based on calculations by energy institutions, but rather a highly generalized, even deliberately exaggerated, political expression.
Second, "55%" is just a number; control is the core.
To understand this statement, one cannot focus solely on "oil," but must look at the word "control."
Trump's statement is not discussing the current energy situation, but rather depicting a future he hopes to shape. The picture: If US capital re-enters some resource-rich countries, if sanctions and rules are redefined, and if energy development combines with finance, military, and diplomacy-then the US's dominant position in the global energy system will be further amplified.
This is strategic language, not a factual description.
At the international level, this statement is more like a probe and a form of pressure. It implies that the US is not satisfied with the existing energy order, nor is it willing to fully accept a market balance mechanism maintained by multiple forces. Energy is no longer just a commodity, but a strategic tool that can be repeatedly wielded.
In this context, any statements about "proportion" or "control" will be amplified and interpreted by the market and various countries, thus affecting expectations, prices, and the pace of competition.
Third, Risks only truly begin to accumulate when energy is highly politicized. Historical experience has repeatedly proven that once energy is excessively politicized, market volatility is often amplified.
In the short term, sentiment precedes actual action; in the medium term, resource-rich countries' defensiveness will continue to increase; in the long term, the global energy system may accelerate its fragmentation, even moving towards bloc formation.
And all of this does not require actually "controlling 55% of the oil" to occur.
